The New York Times runs a 4,000-word article today that provides not a single contrary opinion (ok, one passing and buried comment about freedom) to the idea that talking on cellphones while driving should be banned by all governments everywhere. The tenor of the article is along the lines of: the world is not flat but round, and repeatedly expresses amazement that few governments are banning the practice.
One question that immediately popped in my own mind is this: if talking and texting are really so obviously risky and increase death and misery, why do people continue to do it? The article has this answer: “The answer, they say, is partly the intense social pressures to stay in touch and always be available to friends and colleagues. And there also is the neurological response of multitaskers. They show signs of addiction — to their gadgets.”
So there we go, the typical NYT theory that we are all as stupid as Pavlovian dogs, but governments are as smart as Pavlov.
I went googling to try to find a single dissenting word on this subject. Wikipedia (Deo Gratias!) points out that the bans have been completely ineffective but for the revenue they raise for governments. The entry also points to three studies that draw attention to the equal or greater danger of talking to passengers while driving, one of which (American Transportation Research Board) concludes that conversations with passengers should also be banned.
In any case, it does raise the question: is there no more robust case against bans? I suspect that the rational for bans is the same that we heard before alcohol prohibition in the 1920s: alcoholism is related to poverty, broken homes, crime, and every manner of social corruption, therefore it should be banned, end of story. Having read the pro-prohibition literature from that period, I experienced what might have been the frustration of the anti-prohibition forces, continually trying to explain that a society of human beings is more complicated than the prohibitionists assume but their explanations on the need for freedom fell on deaf ears in the midst of a social hysteria.
{ 57 comments }
← Previous Comments
Of course, I said you probably don’t like ‘prevention’ JohnM hence you seem to confirm the idea ‘prevention is a scam to initiate force against people on the bounds that something might happen in the future but probably won’t’.
But the ‘I’ll do and like it if the person telling me so is a private entity’ is still humourous. It’s akin to ye olde stories where the ruler is ‘illegimate’ and the people keep rebelling and eventually the legitimate ruler is restored to the throne even though the overall nett result is still pretty much the same. Or, it’s like a boy who doesn’t being told what to do by men ‘who aren’t his father’ but happily submits to the rule of his father even though his father is practically abusive compared to the men who merely verbally chastise the boy on the streets for merely littering.
By the way a constitution is a procedures manual for the government in question not ‘the people’ per se hence it doesn’t require ‘everyone to sign’ it.
Your analogy is extremely weak. If you believe property rights are natural rights then I dont have the right to infringe on anyone’s property. I abide by the terms the property owner articulates because it is a voluntary contractual agreement. The State seized the property, therefore it doesn’t have a natural right to make terms regarding its use. The property owner, however, does have a natural right to the property, and if i wish to use it I must agree to his his contractual terms.
in your analogy with the boy, the boy is FREE TO CHOOSE who he listens to. You didn’t say he was COMPELLED to listen to his abusive father, but he willingly does because he LIKES to. I reject being FORCED to abide by someone’s rules on property that does not rightfully belong to them, whereas I do not mind consenting to abide by the terms of someone who rightfully owns said property. the State, as Rothbard so eloquently put it, “is a band of thiees writ large.” I am simply stating people shouldn’t be forced to follow the rules of theives and crooks, and only the rules of people who respect the natural rights of individuals.
An ACCURATE analogy of the situation would be as follows: A boy(John) knocks on his friend (Gil)’s door. Another boy(BT) tells John he cannot enter. John ignores BT because he knows the house belongs to Gil, not BT.
“By the way a constitution is a procedures manual for the government in question not ‘the people’ per se hence it doesn’t require ‘everyone to sign’ it.”
Uhh, yes it does. If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent. if me and my friends got together and signed a document called “John M’s Constitution” and then knocked on your door and forced you to give us all your property you would not find it to be just. But according to you, I could argue that I didn’t need you to sign anything before I created my clubhouse and forced you to give up your property to fund it.
my question to you, who obviously does not beleieve in natural law, if a constitution is only a “procedure’s manual”, then what, pray tell, gives government its legitimacy?
“If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent.”
Of course, that’s an impossible statement isn’t John M? If you consent to an action then there’s no violation. It’s the same as saying “can a person sell themselves into slavery?” Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can’t be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn’t the same as lifelong involuntary servitude. Slavery is different from free labour regardless if slaves can have better working conditions than many free labourers.
Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is ‘illegitimate’ then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there’s no meaningful equivalent in the private sector – why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?
My legitimacy for government – the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it. An aspiring immigrant to the U.S.A. has no business complaining about the government, the constitution, the laws, the customs, etc., they accept all these things if they choose to stay and can only change things through official channels. A child born into the U.S.A. likewise has to accept what their ancestors have set up because they weren’t born in a vacuum.
But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn’t homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn’t founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d’etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn’t want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?
“If you are going to violate my natural rights, in order to do so you have to have my consent.”
Of course, that’s an impossible statement isn’t John M? If you consent to an action then there’s no violation. It’s the same as saying “can a person sell themselves into slavery?” Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can’t be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn’t the same as lifelong involuntary servitude. Slavery is different from free labour regardless if slaves can have better working conditions than many free labourers.
Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is ‘illegitimate’ then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there’s no meaningful equivalent in the private sector – why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?
My legitimacy for government – the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it. An aspiring immigrant to the U.S.A. has no business complaining about the government, the constitution, the laws, the customs, etc., they accept all these things if they choose to stay and can only change things through official channels. A child born into the U.S.A. likewise has to accept what their ancestors have set up because they weren’t born in a vacuum.
But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn’t homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn’t founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d’etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn’t want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?
To John M.
You believe in laws? It sure doesn’t sound like it!!
Love your role models….MLK, Ghandi. Now, find some real ones.
Where do you live Mr. M? Because if it is in the U.S., then YOU HAVE STOLEN property because your goverment confiscated much of it from the Indians!! So, give it up…you have no natural right to it!!! Give it up I say!!
Any one of your or my arguments can always be counterargued. It is a pointless debate. I don’t have to worry though, you will never obtain what you really desire because you are too weak to claim it!!!
Could you please provide data on the booming climate of Somalia? A website would be nice.
Never said aggression was just or ethical. Simply stated that those who don’t like something have the right to AND SHOULD rebel!!!
Finally, according to you, all laws infringe on your natural right to do something. For instance, you think a cell phone ban on the highways is transgressing your natural right; your natural right to what? Be careless? Be negligent? It hasn’t limited your ownership of the cell phone…so no infringement on property! And, if I remember from another member of the faithful posting here, one of your gods – Rothbard, Hayek – “argued correctly that property rights are the only natural right.” Go easy here, I am just repeating what another faithful servant said of one of your gods.
And are the Mises fellows going to change everything in the United States. Probably not…so again, your little voice cries out in vain!!
And I will criticize when, where and how I want to…it is my natural right! Hey, I am just following your policy.
“It’s the same as saying “can a person sell themselves into slavery?” Of course not, because the action was voluntary it can’t be slavery. Lifelong voluntary servitude isn’t the same as lifelong involuntary servitude.”
In this case it is merely a question of semantics. One can agree to be a slave, if your definition of a slave is someone who always does what he is told regardless of his desire. I can sign a contract stating I will do whatever the other party tells me to do for the rest of my life. Whether you call that “slavery” is up to you, but yes, you can make an agreement to be a “slave” so long as that agreement has your CONSENT.
“Alternatively, if you see the government identical to private property owner except the government is ‘illegitimate’ then the argument is going to be hopelessly circular. Similarly, if a constitution is a procedures manual of a government then there’s no meaningful equivalent in the private sector – why would a private property owner write up a piece of paper limiting his right and responsibilities on his own property?”
The argument will forever be circular so long as you believe someone who obtains his propetty by force (a thief/robber) is the legitimate owner of that property.
A property owner wouldn’t because the property owner knows he has legitimacy. Governments know they dont have legitimacy so they write up constitutions and bills of rights to make them appear legitimate so people we accept their authority.
“My legitimacy for government – the founding people chose to have a government over a given amount of land such that newcomers have to abide by it.”
What are you talking about? The founding people didn’t choose this. a GROUP of people chose this and forced everyone else to agree to it. Many of the “founding people” still wanted to be a part of Great Britain. Again, this goes to the idea of the “Club of the USA”, just people some people get together and decide to start up a club, doesn’t mean everyone is automatically a member. The club, however, can make everyone members by threat of force, but that doesn’t make them morally legitimate.
“But then are you going to argue that the U.S. Government is false because white people didn’t homestead or trade land but stole it from the previous inhabitants? Are you going to say the U.S. Government is illegitimate because it wasn’t founded on a popular revolution followed by secession but with a coup d’etat by approximately one-third of the population (two-thirds of the population didn’t want separation from the British Crown) to seize the power from the British Government and set the same government except they now happened to wield the power (from King George to President George)?”
Who wielded the power? Certainly not those 2/3rds. And just because they got something out of the deal doesn’t mean the deal was just, as they did not consent to it.
if I kill you and give your belongings to society, does that means ociety shouldn’t complain because they got something out of it? This is what separates the deontologists from the utiilitarians, we dont try to justify murder, you do.
“Where do you live Mr. M? Because if it is in the U.S., then YOU HAVE STOLEN property because your goverment confiscated much of it from the Indians!! So, give it up…you have no natural right to it!!! Give it up I say!! ”
Nonsense. I stole nothing. If someone steals something and sells it to a pawnshop and I purchae it, that doesn’t make me a thief. Now, do I feel the Indians deserve just compensation for the crimes committed against them? Absolutely. But just compensartion wouldn’t mean to give them all their land back, considering that land had exponentially increased in value since our development on it.
“Any one of your or my arguments can always be counterargued. It is a pointless debate. I don’t have to worry though, you will never obtain what you really desire because you are too weak to claim it!!! ”
Then counterargue if you can. I’m too weak to claim it? I am claiming it, one mind at a time. Just like everyone at this Institute is claiming it, by winning hearts and minds.
“Could you please provide data on the booming climate of Somalia? A website would be nice. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
“Finally, according to you, all laws infringe on your natural right to do something. For instance, you think a cell phone ban on the highways is transgressing your natural right; your natural right to what? Be careless? Be negligent?”
My natural right to my liberty. My liberty to mulittask and enjoy a conversation on a cellular phone while I travel. “Negligence” and “carelessness” are freedoms too. Someone who drinks heavily is being “careless” and “negligent” with his body, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a right to do it.
“It hasn’t limited your ownership of the cell phone…so no infringement on property! And, if I remember from another member of the faithful posting here, one of your gods – Rothbard, Hayek – “argued correctly that property rights are the only natural right.” Go easy here, I am just repeating what another faithful servant said of one of your gods.”
This statement almost makes me want to end my conservsation with you. You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership.
YES it HAS limited my ownership of the cell phone, just like a law banning the consumption of alcohol LIMITS my ownership of said alcohol in my possession. If I have a property right to that cell phone that means I have the right to use it as I please.
And yes, all rights ARE property rights. This is what Rothbard called the principle of self-ownership. We are all owners of your own bodies and our own labor, therefore, so long as we do not transgress the ownership rights of others, no one has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies and our labor.
“And are the Mises fellows going to change everything in the United States. Probably not…so again, your little voice cries out in vain!!”
Well the purpose of this website IS to change everything in the United States and in the world. It is an adruous task but one certainly worth devoting one’s labor to in great regard.
“And I will criticize when, where and how I want to…it is my natural right! Hey, I am just following your policy. ”
It is your natural right, I was merely giving advice. But I’m coming to think you aren’t the type of person that takes advice.
Like I said Mr. John M., all of our arguments can be counter-argued.
“This statement almost makes me want to end my conservsation with you.”
I do enjoy our little fireside chats, so please don’t stop chatting. However, it is your right..so do as you please. You are definitely a well-read individual (I hesitate using the adjective intelligent because you are simply regurgitating what you have read and chose to believe in).
“Nonsense. I stole nothing.”
You have, in essence, stolen from the Indians because you knew the property was originally theirs yet you still chose to “purchase” it. You had no right to it because you did not get the consent of the original owner – the Native American.
I was hoping for a more legitimate source than wikipedia; I hardly rate that site as a solid, primary source. Nevertheless, it was entertaining reading. So, my question to you – why haven’t you moved? I am still waiting for one of you fanatics to embrace what you preach. It could be profitable you know – you could write a book about the experience. But alas, you probably wouldn’t earn that much on the book sale because there is no justification for you to have a copyright to the material (i.e. you wouldn’t have a monopoly on the material). It is interesting though, that such a smooth – sailing society as Somalia can not even take care of simple things like pirates – surely the entrepreneurs can generate enough jobs to put the pirates to legitimate work!
“My liberty to mulittask”
Don’t know if you know it or not, but there is compelling evidence to suggest that humans can not parallel process (i.e. multi-task). Furthermore, by your own admission, YOU have no right to travel: YOU think government has NO legitimacy thus no right to own/confiscate property-including that for road building. However, you seem to believe in traveling on this confiscated property. How can this be? Even if you believe the government doesn’t own it, YOU certainly do not own it (again, going by your mind set). So, what are you doing stealing space on a highway that doesn’t belong to you. Have you compensated the original owners? I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
“You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership.”
Is it I who shows no understanding of anything? Or is it you? Negligence and carelessness within the confines of your own being ARE FREEDOMS!!! Absolutely poor example with the drunk person – you outwitted yourself. The drunk does have every right to be negligent and careless with his body…what he doesn’t have a right to be is negligent and careless with MY BODY by entering a vehicle and attempting to drive. I think you miss something entirely. YOU can do whatever YOU want with YOUR body, but once you enter into society, there must be some amount of order – limits (i.e. I need to have reasonable assurance that freakin’ utopians like yourself aren’t cokin’ up before you head out on the highway).
“You clearly show NO understanding of even the most simple and basic idea of ownership.”
Property ownership doesn’t mean you have the right to use it as you please when your behavior is predisposed to trumping my rights. Again, your ignorant example of alcohol shows you stopped short of carrying the thought through. I would never want to ban alcohol consumption (for many reasons); however, your example seems to be “operating in a void” (i.e. you assume no other participants in society). Let us use another example to really illustrate the point. If I take my AK-47 (a favorite of anarchists) out and start shooting up in the air in the middle of your street, are you going to be alright with that? I mean, I am doing what I want to do with MY property. Who are you to say otherwise? Point taken?
Yes, changing people’s hearts and minds is an arduous task; I have been trying to do the same for many years myself. However, I hope you know that rantings like yours will forever keep the majority at bay; so, I say again, your efforts are futile.
“It is your natural right, I was merely giving advice. But I’m coming to think you aren’t the type of person that takes advice.”
I take sound advice, not lunatic advice. For me, limited government and maximum freedom within the confines of my property (don’t get cute on semantics here) is good enough. If you want to smoke crack, snort coke, and screw every porn star from sea to shining sea…it is fine with me!! But, and here is your dreaded limitation, you must do it on your property (or the property of someone who has given consent) where the threat of transgressing my rights isn’t likely to happen!!! I know, you are going to charge me with utilitarianism aren’t you? Well, I guess it could be construed as that; however, I would like to call it common sense.
I have a strong suspicion that people such as yourself would be the first to be trampled in a society with no order/laws/minor limitations. And, Mr. JOHN M., I truly hope that you are not living off the government dole, working at a government job, or attending any form of government institution because that would just be hypocritical (and you are a big enough hypocrite for complaining about the government while using its highways…the technology is present such that you would never have to use government sponsored roads in a direct manner)!!!
Finally, I was under the impression from another of the faithful posting here that Mises did believe in limited government.?. Did I miss something or did one of your brethren not interpret the “scriptures” correctly?
BTW, thanks for the earlier links on further educational reading, I will definitely begin devouring them ASAP. It will be an interesting journey no doubt.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.